"Obliterate Iran"

[Sebastian Doyle]

Do you remember those words?

Do you remember who said them?

Do you want that person as the foreign representative of the Obama administration?

[otohara]

1. Was It Sarah Palin?

:sarcasm:

[DesertFlower]

2. i remember. nt

[trumad]

3. Uhhh context is everything---except to a knucklehead Hillary hater.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton warned Tehran on Tuesday that if she were president, the United States could "totally obliterate" Iran in retaliation for a nuclear strike against Israel.

[jenmito]

10. I wouldn't want us to obliterate Iran in retaliation of a nuclear strike against Israel...

Why kill so many innocent people?

[trumad]

12. Really---

So what if Iran went after uh, Germany next... Just keep letting them do it?

[jenmito]

13. I'd want Obama to get the people responsible for the bombing. I would NOT want him to drop a nuke

on the people of Iran. THEY didn't do anything.

[Duende azul]

41. You´re talking as if Iran had any nukes

Like Iraq had WMD?

Of the two countries in question regarding the Clinton quote, it´s pretty well known that only one of them has nukes. And it´s not Iran.

Yeah, context is important.

[Realityhack]

20. That is true... however... this IS how MAD works.

and despite what people say it does generally work. I don't think there is *anything* wrong with telling country A that it will be the end of their country if they make a nuclear attack on nation B.

[Levgreee]

23. you don't use the word "obliterate" regardless. It's a cruel, inhumane notion, and to use it to mak

a point, is not right.

She could have got the same point across without saying she would obliterate Iran. Everyone knows we have enough nukes to kill the whole world several times over.

She was doing it to appear like a chickenhawk to right-leaning primary voters.


If you listen to her say it I think it is pretty obvious she was trying to sound tough, not that she was just pointing out a fact.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u1nmGmtD18

[dkf]

4. Yup...that is a problem for me too.

She scares me.

[fascisthunter]

5. She Said, IF Israel were attacked by Iran with Nukes...

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2224332720080422

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacks Israel)," Clinton said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."

In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," she said.

[trumad]

6. Yeah---context to the knuckleheads below is an alien concept.

[fascisthunter]

18. It's One thing to Dislike Her for a Particular Cabinet Position

but people need to be honest. There are plenty of points one can make objectively without twisting truth...

...sometimes trumad, emotions get the better of folks.

[KittyWampus]

36. there is no context that makes her statement acceptable for a representative of the US Govt.

[Duende azul]

42. Iran has not attacked anyone in recent history.

They were the ones being attacked. By "our guy" Saddam with US-approval.

A candidate who uses this kind of fearmongering should be disqualified for any position in foreign policy.
Either it´s dishonest pandering to segments of an electorate (segments that btw wouldn´t have voted for her anyway).
Or it´s plainly stupid.

The difference to MCBombIran was only gradual.

She easily could have dismissed that question.
Starting with pointing out the entirely false premise, or talking about distrust in any scenario the Bush admin comes up with...

[Cali_Democrat]

7. Even if Hillary wanted to obliterate Iran, she wouldn't be able to.

Obama will have the nuclear codes, not Hillary ;-)

[cwydro]

8. I guess we are going to refight the primaries all over again.

Sigh.

[Sebastian Doyle]

14. This has nothing to do with the primaries

It has to do with putting an enthusiastic supporter of PNAC wars in charge of the US State Department, and as the main overseas representative of this country and of President Obama.

[Realityhack]

22. Given what you said in your OP it has to do with quote mining...

out of context quote mining.

Bet we can find a bunch of biologists who think evolution is BS based on the same type of 'research'.

Regardless of wither Hillary would make a good SoS, the quote you in your OP is out of context to such an extent as to make it downright misleading. That type of argumentation has no place in a reasoned debate.

[Sebastian Doyle]

30. OK then, what about her vote for the ridiculous Kyl-Lieberman amendment?

What about her vote for the Iraq war?

And spare me the old "oh based on the intelligence we had at the time..." bullshit.

What's her last name again? Who is she married to?

Yeah that's right. The guy who got the REAL intelligence reports from Scott Ritter's UN inspection team. So Hillary, of all people, KNEW DAMN WELL that Chimpy was lying, but she voted for his wars anyway. First Iraq. Then the lame excuse he wanted to "obliterate" Iran.

She is not worthy to represent this country overseas based on that alone. "Quote mining" my ass. I didn't have to search for that quote. Unlike some who find a way to excuse everything she does, it's never left my brain from the moment she said it.

[Realityhack]

39. Please calm down.

I was not arguing that Hillary would make a good SoS. I was commenting on the merits of a specific argument. Said argument is bogus.

[Whisp]

9. silly, what she said during the primaries DOESN'T COUNT.

:rofl:
she was just play acting, doing whatever she thought would get her votes. Obliterate has a nice ring to it, makes her sound 'strong' like boosh.

you hater you.

[trumad]

11. So you're one of the idiots who doesn't believe in the context of a quote?

[Whisp]

15. that quote alone does not make up my mind about what

she thinks about wars. It's a collection of things she has said and done that makes this quote so especially repugnant to me.

war? easy peasy. where do I sign? _H. Clinton

[jenmito]

16. So YOU think it's ok to nuke an entire country of innocent people because their GOVT. attacked

another country?

[trumad]

17. Yeah I do---

I like the way you avoid the word Nuke...

If a country Nukes another country, you better nuke them back. That's called deterrence.

[jenmito]

19. I didn't purposely avoid the word "nuke." If the Iranian govt. NUKES Israel I do NOT think

it's right that we "obliterate" an entire country. How would YOU feel if Iraq "obliterated" US (say they were capable of doing it) because BUSH decided to "smart bomb" their country, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people?

[bertman]

28. trumad, thanks for living up to your screen name. What you are spouting off is truly mad.

First of all, what gives the United States the right to attack a country that attacks Israel when Israel has enough nuclear weaponry to blow Tehran and most of Iran's cities and tactical targets off the map? This is the same old United States as protector of the world bullshit that Bush and Cheney have been jawing about since they got into office. It's U.S. corporate imperialism at its worst. We don't need to protect Israel. Israel is quite capable of protecting itself. Study a little history and you will see that is the case.

Second, if Senator Clinton really feels that is how she should respond to a question about an attack on Israel she is off her rocker. She was trying to shore up her ultra-right wing pro-Israel voting bloc. Any attack by another nation on Israel or anyone else for that matter, deserves a careful response after determining WHO the attacker really was as well as WHY they attacked and what the most effective response would be. For her to categorically say we'd be able to totally obliterate them was pandering of the worst degree.

I hope that President Obama will continue to be the thoughtful, non-reactive presence he has always demonstrated himself to be--unlike a certain person he is apparently considering as his Secretary of State.

[fascisthunter]

21. I Agree with You Here but...

she stated this because she was right and honest. Our country does have the capability to nuke Iran, "obliterating" it... the US will retaliate... that's why she asserted that Iran's attack would be "reckless, foolish and tragic."

At least that's what I think.

[Realityhack]

25. That isn't actualy the point.

The correct question is...
Is it correct to signal to another country that should they nuke (or otherwise horrifically attack) an ally that you can and will strike back destroying their country... thus making the initial attack a foolish thing to even consider?

It turns out this is exactly how foreign policy sometimes works. This acts as a deterrent. The leadership knows that even if they did manage to pull off the attack, not only would they not survive, but their entire society would not, thus reducing the incentives to attack in the first place.

[rvablue]

24. Can anyone on DU give me an example of SoS that carried out a military strike?

Their job is diplomacy.

They are dispatched by the President.

Anything they negotiate has no force of law, until the President signs it.

[Whisp]

44. I think that blood gargeling Kissinger was SoS. but I may be wrong.

[BritishDemocrat]

26. Okay, HERE is what she said, and why she said it...

"I want the IRANIANS to know..."

"I want THEM TO UNDERSTAND THAT..."

"Those people that run Iran need to understand that..."

"...we would be able to obliterate them."

This IS how MAD works. The whole point of nuclear deterrence is that your deterrent has to be credible. Her main aim is to PREVENT an attack on Israel.

She knows what she is doing. Hillary is not stupid, and she doesn't want to 'obliterate' countries for the fun of it. This is how MAD works.

[Levgreee]

31. she said it to appeal to chickenhawk primary voters,not to reiterate and support the USes MAD policy

Why would a senator have to echo MAD threats, with a Bush administration no less? I think Iran knew how close they were to being invaded/obliterated with Bush in office.

I guess McCain's "bomb bomb Iran" didn't get it across well enough either.

[Canuckistanian]

27. Give it a rest n/t

[tinrobot]

29. I think talking tough is a good quality for a Secretary of State

I know that Obama would never "obliterate" a country, but having someone who can threaten it to further a diplomatic solution may be a good thing.

The whole good cop/bad cop approach.

[BzaDem]

32. People who do not know how deterrence actually works should not be posting about the SOS position.

[JimboBillyBubbaBob]

38. A question

What do you mean?

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our fourth quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[cali]

34. Tough shit for you and other whiners that you don't get to choose or influence

our President's choice of cabinet members. Don't choke on reality, dear.

Clinton, should she be Obama's choice for SoS, will be working for him. And I trust his judgment far more than yours.

[Skwmom]

37. But they still have the right to voice their opposition to such a pick.

Obama is smart, but no one is infallible (and a smart person realizes that).

People have voiced concerns that the Clintons might set up a parallel govt, a co-presidency, or a third Clinton term. People have a right to voice these concerns. We aren't Bush Republicans.

This economy and financial system has yet begun to tank. The foreign policy is arena is the one in which Obama might have the greatest success in his first term. Wonder who will get the credit?

[ClarkUSA]

35. I want Ms. "Obliterate Iran" for SoS as much as John "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran" McCain

But I trust President Obama will choose well and wisely. I'm sure Barack doesn't want a media circus surrounding the SoS
Senate hearings regarding Bill's dodgy but highly lucrative backroom deals brokered by convicted con men, despots and
dictators as well as that library donor list, heretofore top secret but which would have to be revealed for the world to see
and judge.

Oh joy.

Not.

[alwysdrunk]

43. Circus is right

I like Hillary and I like Bill, but it only takes a moment of honesty to acknowledge that the Clintons are a walking talking two person drama factory. It's not all there fault, the media has an unhelpful obsession with them. And for some reason Hillary gets extra unfair hate from the right and the center and even the left sometimes.

Noting all of Hillary's profile and exceptional talent, I really don't think the country needs this dynamic in our presidents administration and in our State Department.

[ClarkUSA]

45. Our nation has had enough of dodgy dysfunctional dynastic dramas from political leaders.

America voted for a No Drama Obama administration. I hope that's what we get.

[TexasObserver]

40. Oh, I know this one!

Was it Mrs. Buttersworth?